On November 8, 1965, the Chagos Archipelago was officially excised from Mauritius. This marked a controversial turning point in the region’s history — one shrouded in political maneuvering, overlooked voices, and enduring myths. In this article, we untangle the facts, dispel the assumptions, and shine a light on the untold perspectives behind one of the Indian Ocean’s most contested episodes.
In the lead-up to Mauritian independence, the UK proposed to detach the Chagos Archipelago to form the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). The Council of Ministers in Mauritius, including Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam and Ministers Koenig, Duval, and Devienne, agreed in principle — though not without hesitation.
They expressed concerns about the £3 million compensation being inadequate and lamented the lack of sugar quota arrangements. Notably, Koenig later stated:
“Nous ne sommes pas contre l’excision des îles pour les besoins militaires de l’Ouest.”
— L’Express, November 13, 1965
On November 11th, the three ministers resigned, signaling internal disagreement and discomfort — but not outright rejection — of the deal.
Here lies the most disturbing truth: At no point during the excision process were the Chagossians — the native islanders — consulted. In official minutes from the Lancaster House Conference, they are only referenced under compensation matters, lumped in with landowners and referred to as a labor force.
On November 10th, 1965, Anthony Greenwood, UK Secretary of State for the Colonies, told Parliament that the Chagossians were simply “Mauritians consisting of a labour force and their dependents drawn from Mauritius and employed on the copra plantations.” Only 638 individuals were noted — an underestimated and depersonalized count.
Despite common belief, Mauritian independence was not a foregone conclusion in 1965. Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Lancaster House Conference minutes use cautious language — “In the event of independence…” — indicating that sovereignty would only follow a favorable outcome in the 1967 general elections.
Indeed, had the PMSD party won, the UK likely would not have granted independence at all — even though Chagos had already been detached.
It is often said that Sir Ramgoolam acted alone in the excision agreement. The truth is that four key political leaders were involved, and they had multiple opportunities to change course, both in London and back home in Mauritius.
The excision was not an imposition — it was a negotiated act, albeit under unequal power dynamics.
The story of Chagos is not just about politics or borders — it is about people. The Chagossians were not consulted, not counted properly, and ultimately displaced. They were treated as a footnote in a geopolitical game.
Understanding this history is not only about setting the record straight — it’s about giving a voice to those who were silenced.
